Hello Steve & all fellow TBUDL members,
Friday, January 21, 2000, 2:16:00 PM, Steve wrote in response to
Marck's saying:
>> What, all lists are the same?
After Steve said:
SL>>> Other lists are different?
I just tried replying with TB to 6 lists related to my work (which is
not computer related, I just use them rather heavily).
While most respond to sender when typing Ctrl+F5, ALL responded to
sender using Ctrl+F4. Therefore, I would say that all lists are not
the same and that Marck was correct in recommending the use of Ctrl+F4
when replying to sender only.
SL> Asside from announce-only lists where there are no replies can you
SL> think of a list where replies aren't made to individuals? :)
A number of participatory lists do in fact work that way, but most are
varied - that is, they can come in either way.
<snip>
SL> However, you are not the list nor is the list's address yours. The
SL> reply-to of the list satisfies the convention of replies going
SL> back to the list unless otherwise needed. We don't need your name
SL> associated with the list address to have that.
It appeared to me that Marck gave an example which applies to any
sender. The protocols used for TBUDL would have to be taken up with
dutaint, I would think.
>> It gives a far greater human feel to it for me.
SL> Group hug! No really, makes you an easier target for me. *gack*
There is no doubt that no one on this list who posts is immune to
being a target. An interested anecdote that illustrates that: One
someone would get aggressive in one of the places I lived longest (and
like most), it was common to ask if "a ti no te entran?", meaning: Are
you bullet proof? It was an excellent place to live because everyone
was consistently careful to be polite.
>> different "Reply-To" address in their original message then IMHO it
>> is a politeness and courtesy to combine the two headers in exactly
>> the way TB does it.
SL> Uhm, no, it is not. Why?
SL> 1: It is header munging. Don't do it.
Would you mind defining munging?
SL> 2: If the person wants their name in the TO: field off a reply-to,
SL> they can configured the reply-to to have their name in it.
SL> 3: Personally, I don't give a crap if my name is in the to field
SL> or not. In fact, on some lists I send mail out as "Grey d'Miyu
SL> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and get replies to "Grey". Big deal. What
SL> matters is the *BODY* of the message. And in the body of the
SL> message, low and behold, we have an attribution line with the
SL> person's name in it!
If I understand you correctly, I would say that TBs templates rely on
the "Steve Lamb" in the Steve Lamb <TBUDL etc to produce "Hello Steve
& all fellow" etc or whatever I want it to say. This is a consistent
approach and consistency is valuable, when shared by the user.
SL> "Friday, January 21, 2000, 11:55:25 AM, Marck wrote:"
>> In the case of TBUDL, we have the list configured to direct replies
>> back to the list. This is where the real bone of contention arises.
SL> No. My bone is with TB! doing something it should not be doing,
SL> period. If I set my reply-to to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't
SL> want people sending mail to "Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".
How are TB replies directed to TBUDL coming in as
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Now I see your point - you do that on
purpose, as is your choice. And if I reply to you, it WILL
never-the-less be directed as you say. You are saying then that you
are unhappy with that design choice. I would think that with your
skill you could design an email client to your own ideals.
Alternatively, you could discuss this with the programmers. But I
can't say that in my own case I find this trait to be a negative
factor.
In general, I'd say it was positive for to reasons: One, it's easier
to delete than to type in, and more important in this case, the
response IS being made to Steve Lamb in response to a post Steve Lamb
made, and those subscribing to TBUDL are thus able to take that into
account when deciding whether to open the post or not. Who is writing
to to who and regarding what is definitely a factor to me. There have
been over 4000 TBUDL posts since November - no way I'm going to read
them all.
SL> Why? What happens when it is a communal box with several different
SL> people responding? IE, I may not be the only person in that box,
SL> why should my name be attached to that address unless I asked it
SL> to be?
SL> It should not.
You want to be asked whether your name should be used when replying to
you?
>> It would be ridiculous to leave my friend's name off that envelope
>> just because it is not going to their normal address.
SL> That is not the issue here. Your friend's name is part of the
SL> technical routing of that letter. Who it is do is defined by his
SL> name, especially if that holding address is, say, his parent's
SL> place. Which of the 5 people at that residence at that time will
SL> be getting the letter?
SL> That technical requirement doesn't exist in email. I am
SL> [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is all that is needed to route mail to
SL> me. The name in front is a comment, nothing more. However, having
SL> a comment mismatched with an email address causes confusion, may
SL> be what people don't want, and is SEVERELY frowned upon.
Interesting logic. I wonder how many other TUBDL subscribers share
that concern. I for one want to know who wrote who on what subject
when that message arrives in my mailbox. And I am not wrong (nor is
there a way to be wrong), that is simply my choice. This is why
different ways of doing things exists - different strokes for
different folks.
Basta. (That means enough - it is spelled that way. That was said to
make sure no one thinks I'm calling anyone illegitimate. Everyone on
the list has something valuable to contribute (although not
necessarily in equal proportions for all members) and respect on list
IS necessary, but I'm not going to hug you).
<snip>
Douglas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
